(02-02-2019 07:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 04:09 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-02-2019 10:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 10:32 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(02-01-2019 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Well actually, the article is based on a stated reason to drop down to FBS - some schools might save a lot of money by doing so.

The writer does not actually identify schools that would save money dropping down. He uses attendance numbers from one season to come up with a list of candidates, but he does not do the research to see if any of these schools would actually save money. He does not identify a single school that would save money by dropping down to FCS.

Schools like San Jose State and Eastern Michigan can point to the revenue from guarantee games or money games, the revenue from the CFP and conference revenue. Not to mention the fact that schools dropping down need to find a new conference home. He would probably find, if he did the research, that none of these schools are candidates for dropping down to FCS.

I don't know of any school that has published research showing that a move from FBS to FCS would cost or save money either. He does make a plausible claim based on FBS costs that are known.

To justify remaining in FBS, elite administrators typically just "point" (good word you used, btw) to stuff like the factors you mention, without solid research backing it up.

The writer's article was entitled "Which teams should leave FBS? Here’s a serious answer. Plenty of schools might be best served by dropping down. Let’s make a rough plan for how it could work." He asks the question and then he does not bother to answer it.

The answers are out there, if he bothered to do look. He needs to give specific answers. For example, NMSU had a committee of 19 people look at the financial differences between FBS football and FCS football and the committee voted unanimously to stay at FBS. They committee estimated $2.9 million greater revenue from being an FBS independent than a FCS program. The committee estimated that a drop to FCS football would have cost the NMSU an estimated $1.4 million, most of which comes from money games.

.....

In 2019, NMSU will make $3.8 million from money games against Washington State, Alabama and Ole Miss. Their home schedule of San Diego State, Fresno State, UTEP, Liberty and Incarnate Word is better than an FCS home schedule.

Remember, in many cases, these panels and committees are put together by elites that want to see a particular answer - stay in FBS. That can color the kinds of assumptions that go into these analyses.

IIRC, NMSU elites made a 2013 "commitment" to FBS before it did any studies, so it's not surprising that a 2015 panel would come back with a pro-FBS result. E.g., in the study you quote, i think the panel assumed that as an FCS they would get no money from "money games", even though FCS teams can play money games too.

That's before we even consider that playing money games is a pretty sad-sack reason for being FBS: "Hey, why do we have an FBS football team? So we can make a million bucks to get beat up at Texas!"

It's really not a surprise that elite administrators almost always favor having big bloated athletic programs. It's in their personal interest to do so even if it is at odds with the school they currently work for.

E.g. if you are the President or AD at a school like NMSU or EMU, do you want them to drop down to FCS on your watch? Even if that is actually great for EMU, it is likely to look terrible on your resume, because for an admin at EMU, a move up means a move to a P5 school, and a P5 school is going to hate seeing that.

IIRC, about 5 years ago when EMU was really struggling and the HBO report on their athletic finances came out, EMU had a brand-new AD, and she vigorously defended keeping EMU football FBS and in the MAC. In 2017, she left EMU to take the the AD job at Pittsburgh. That had to be a banner day for her, a move from a struggling directional MAC school to a venerable ACC member. I bet her salary went up hugely and her career is now made.

Now, even if cutting EMU football entirely or dropping to FCS was best for EMU (less than a year after she left for Pitt, EMU announced it was cutting 4 other sports to help the budget), do you think there's any chance at all she gets the Pitt job if EMU had cut football or dropped to FCS on her watch? Not a chance, because schools like Pitt are always looking to expand athletics, not cut them.

So the pro-FBS position of G5 admins has to be viewed with skepticism.

If you know anything about how these studies are done, you are always skeptical. The "experts" usually know the desired answer and try to fit it into their analysis.

Now Rice did a good thorough, fair study a few years back. That one came to the conclusion that their only real choices were stay in CUSA or go to Division III. And in Division III they would have more travel since they would join the UAA which stretches from St. Louis to Atlanta to New York.